chevy silverado 4 whizzer....been planning ecoboost...

Captain Ledd said:

I think that having that engine with a manual transmission would almost render it unusable actually. If it's developing some 350lb ft at 1,500 RPM that's some serious push. If you were on the throttle and were a little too aggressive on the clutch engagement I can see that grenading stuff quick. With an auto, particularly a fancy 8 speed, is going to have a much more difficult time lugging that engine.

I'd also go so far as to say that they've probably done some trick gearing in that trans and maybe in combination with some boost control in lower gears so that when starting, it may not reach full power/boost, but compensates for it with lower early gears.

I'm pretty convinced it'll get the job done surprisingly well.

I've towed tons of stuff with my little 4 cylinder Ranger. It hasn't necessarily been quick about it at times, but it's pulled it and hit highway speeds, even if only 60. My point is, you don't need enough horsepower and torque to pull thousands of pounds up hills and steep grades at 70 and hardly notice it, or be able to accelerate like it's not even there. I've also heard from some of the RV guys that these big diesel trucks will blow a tire on the trailer and be driving along for quite some time (usually until someone starts honking), because they make so much power they didn't notice the tire blown. You'd think they see it in the mirror but let's be honest about todays drivers...

Side note, I didn't see the Buick Grand National mentioned above. That had a "tiny" turbo engine and that thing was quick. If fact, out of the factory it was actually faster than the Corvette. Of course GM kept heir lips tightly sealed on that because they can't have their flagship/iconic performance vehicle be slower than some sedan.

*edit: Corvairs are unsafe at any speed, so if you're not moving, you're good.

Click to expand...

Shran said:

Low mileage as in under 50k, these are probably all or mostly all in-warranty repairs but perhaps it'll be the next A4LD - time will tell. I talked to a guy who had three transmission failures in a 2014 F150, under 50k, all covered under warranty. Not towing excessive loads or other abuse, just flat out failure. From my conversations with a Ford technician buddy, it's a common occurrence.

Click to expand...

Shran said:

Are we having this discussion simply to discuss a potential new truck or is it geared more towards using that vehicle's drivetrain for engine swaps?

I am not totally opposed to a 4 cylinder full size but here's the deal: it MUST perform as well or better than it would with a V6 or V8. It needs to make power in exactly the same way that a bigger engine would, and it needs to be reliable. The last thing I want is a truck that loses its nuts when I put a load of gravel in it, or hook up a reasonably sized trailer. It also needs to be economical - if I'm getting 8mpg with that 4 cylinder towing a trailer and worrying about half ton size drivetrain parts, there is no benefit vs the V10 truck I have now.

If this is more of an engine swap debate - I hope if this comes to fruition, it has a SBC bellhousing pattern. THAT would be cool. LS swaps are so popular because they're easy and the physical package is fairly small - done right this has the potential to be the same thing.

Click to expand...

Truckedup said:

I have a Ranger but other than that I'm a Chevy guy pretty much...When the F150 V-6 turbo came out all the Chevy guys said the same thing you're saying...Like it's it some buzzy little engine and not a throbbing V8...And it won't do the job............
GM has a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory but they do have a history of gas engine turbo superchargers going back to WW2 Allison V12 aircraft engines, 60's Corvairs and the 215 cube Olds engine and the late turbo Colbalt...So in theory they should know how make it all work.....I think a big plus would be offering a 6 speed manual transmission with the turbo four...But that unlikely in today one footed driver's market..

Click to expand...

don4331 said:

Reading the fine print: GMC only intends the 4 banger with wheezer to go into their base full size trucks.

So this 2.7 I-4 turbo is intended to go against Fords 3.3 V6. And the base trucks have a Ranger-esque 5-7k lbs towing limit. I see that as a win for Chevy - 348ftlbs@1,500rpm blows doors off 265ftlbs@4,500rpm, and the I-4 gets better fuel economy in the CAFE fuel test. I wonder how long until we see the 2.3 EcoBoost in the F-150.

I have a soft spot for the Ram eTorque - extra 130ftlbs available right off idle out of 100 lb package.

With eTorque, I would be fine with 1.5l I-3 Ecoboost (Fiesta ST motor) in Ranger. Better off line performance during my city driving, loads better fuel economy in winter. Probably does better on CAFE. Adequate for hauling/towing I do (Adventurer 76 in bed, Seadoo Sportster on trailer); it won't slow any worse than the 4.0 OHV in my '98.

I recognize there is some complexity in a turbocharged, electric assisted power plant, but as tech weenie, I'll put up with those for the benefits.

Original Corvair station wagons were prone to oversteer especially when you inflate front tires to same levels as rear, which makes them unsafe. Later models which had the rear swing axle replaced and sway bar installed had no issues. But damage was done.

Like the Pinto, just a few $$ worth of parts would have saved millions

Click to expand...

Truckedup said:

You must be thinking of Pintos...

Click to expand...

adsm08 said:

Weren't the Corvairs the rear-engine cars that had exhaust flow issues and would flood the passenger cabin with exhaust gas if you got stuck at a stop?

Click to expand...